Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelangelica
Marriage was a Catholic Church "sacrament".
However one problem with it is, for example, when say, you work for the Australian Public Service, have lived with the same partner or soul mate for thirty years.
If you died and were heterosexual, your pension would go to support your wife.
If you died and were homosexual your partner would get nothing.
This is patently unfair and unjust. Similarly, with property owned by the couple.
"Marriage" is now, very much a legal, civil union with consequences such as the above.
How different will your "special laws" be to marriage? What are your reasons for not using the existing marriage ceremony? No 'special laws' would then be needed.
|
You mean to say then that there is no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage? I agree that there should be no legal difference. But I disagree that the term "marriage" should apply to both. If we legalize "gay marriage" then we will forever have two kinds of marriages, which will serve only to promote animosity. How do you solve that problem? You can take the word "marriage" out of the legal context and the problem goes away. Or you can call "gay marriage" something else and the problem goes away.
But, to me, it's only a philosophical problem. I want to see all kind people get spliced to the ones they love. But those who decry "separate but equal" make a philosophical mistake when they call for legalizing "gay marriage," which is to say that it should be separate but equal to straight marriage.
Quote:
|
How come you would deny people the right to make public their love and commitment to each other?
|
But I don't! I want to see all of the people get all of their rights regardless of who or what they love. If you're talking about homosexuals loving each other then I'm all for legalizing same-sex domestic partnerships. But I guess you want me to redefine my definition of marriage to include "gay marriage." So, my nagging philosophical question is: Why do I need to alter my orthodox Middle Ages" definition of marriage when I already support legalizing full-on domestic partnerships for gays.
btw: I happen to be a very liberal person who is kind and respectful to life and nature, and I don't see why my questioning the need to change my definition of "marriage" should disqualify may claim of being a liberal.
